Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your argument stands on what, illogical reasoning?😄
I responded to your post just above this one.
As I stated before, you were never asking for a living organism. You were asking for something complex that came about by "chance," as you so stated.
I would also like to remind you that it's not the scientists dabling with the stuff to create it. It is self-assembly, meaning that the scientists provide the proper environment for these inorganic substances (i.e. early earth environment), and they self-assemble. It has also been observed, as I stated before, that fragments of RNA have been observed to self-assemble in simulated early earth environments.
Instead of searching "teh internetz" for information, why not take a Cellular and Molecular biology class and do your own research. I find it rather inane that you would base all of your facts on the internet, especially when so much of it isn't verifiable.
Yes, my arguement still stands. You've only responded with how silly my observations are, which is rather childish. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence that pretty much all of the necessary biological molecules, and pretty much all the parts of a basic prokaryote, have been observed to self-assemble is merely stubborn on your part.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
As I stated before, you were never asking for a living organism. You were asking for something complex that came about by "chance," as you so stated.I would also like to remind you that it's not the scientists dabling with the stuff to create it. It is self-assembly, meaning that the scientists provide the proper environment for these inorganic substances (i.e. early earth environment), and they self-assemble. It has also been observed, as I stated before, that fragments of RNA have been observed to self-assemble in simulated early earth environments.
Instead of searching "teh internetz" for information, why not take a Cellular and Molecular biology class and do your own research. I find it rather inane that you would base all of your facts on the internet, especially when so much of it isn't verifiable.
Yes, my arguement still stands. You've only responded with how silly my observations are, which is rather childish. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence that pretty much all of the necessary biological molecules, and pretty much all the parts of a basic prokaryote, have been observed to self-assemble is merely stubborn on your part.
I never said that any scientists were dabling with any stuff to create anything (I don't even talk like this), these are your words.
What facts have I based on the internet?
I choose to ignore what evidence?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveAgain you fail to grasp the concept but I really don't expect you too. 😉 You wanted to be shown something that could be form and we did and now you give excuses as to why not that is not proof or evidence. You have as much proof if not less showing that God created everything; I have just as much evidence to say that aliens created everything or the 3rd grader in science class. All of which fit into your "creator" theory, you will now say that they are not as smart as God, how do you know that God is smart? The Bible?
Protobionts are not living organisms, they simply exhibit [B]some life properties. But that is not life. Besides, producing something in a controlled environment under predetermined circumstances with the aid of highly educated scientists does not remotely mimic or simulate the early earth conditions (sorry, but these are the facts). So if the supposed precursors of prokaryotic cells (i.e. protobionts) required at the very minimum and intelligent scientist who is trained and educated in scientific practice and principles, and is versed in how to perform scientific research in accordance with the scientific method and other scientific process was necessary to orchestrate the formation of protobionts by guiding, overseeing, and orchestrating the process, what makes you believe that life (complicated life) could have come about from a random, undirected, unmanaged, unguided, unintelligent, chance occurrence? (I don't understand why you cannot see the illogic in this line of thinking). The simplest protobionts could not emerge without the aid of an intelligent, highly educated scientist yet you believe that complicated life, with all of its complexity and variety, intelligence, order, design, apparent purpose, and ingenuity just fortuitously came about with just the right circumstances to support and perpetuate all of them? There isn't this amount of luck and fortuity in the universe. Scientists have done calculations that determine likelihood of an event occurring. Based on those findings they have determined that life could not have emerged by chance. (Sorry, but these are the facts).If you doubt anything that I have written AngryManatee then do a search on the internet for yourself to find out what scientists have to say about the possibility of life emerging by chance. You will be astonished.
😄 [/B]
"I have provided a number of examples for why I believe that time is linear. What is your definition of "one-dimensional?" You are not making any sense. Linear means "straight, involving a single dimension." "
u havent provided any scientific examples, ur understanding of reletivity and quantum mechanics is worse than ur understanding of buddhism or syntax. linear means PERCIEVEABLY STRAIGHT TO AN OBSERVER GIVEN THAT HE IS IN THE SAME DIMENSION AS THE PHENOMENON IN QUESTION! straight DOES NOT MEAN a single dimension, it only vaguely implies it in EUCLEDIAN SPACE{just so that u UNDERSTAND this time, eucledian space is space where all dimenions at ALL points are at 90 degrees to each other} however real space-time as i said twists, turns, breaks off, reunites, changes shift, etc etc etc. also with physical dimensions{WHICH ARE NON EUCLEDIAN} u have to use geodiscs instead of LINES, as u see it simplistically{eg, the surface of the earth is TWO dimensional, i.e surface are, or the surface area of a sphere, in EUCLEDIAN SPACE ie, a page if u were to draw a triangle, the sum of the angles would ALWAYS be equal to 180 degress. however if u were to draw the SAME triangle on the same 2 dimensional plane called the surface of the sphere or earth, the internal angles of the triangle would always be GREATER than 180 degrees. its a simple experiment u can do urself to verify. PHYSICAL dimensions act like the surface of the sphere, as long as ur in the dimension, things wud seem liner, but from any other dimension, the original dimension in question is twisting and turning and is NON LINEAR, this is the basis for the explanation of the quantum effect and NONLINEAR propgation of light and particles which gave birth to the quantum theory!
"What do you mean by metapsychosis?
The theories about time travel support my belief that time is linear that is why I mention it."
metapsychosis= spirit transmigration, it was pun, intended to explain the phenomenon of quantum shifiting, to you who only understands things in terms of relegion. and no, the theories of time travel DONT support ur belief that time is linear.
"Question: Can an object of nucleonic particle size (or larger) be accelerated to near lightspeed? The answer is no. Nucleonic particles would become disrupted causing them to separate. The strong forces is not capable of holding those particles together at or near the speed of light. So, actually your Twins Hypothesis in relation to time dilation is invalid. There is no way for time dilation to occur at that speed. Besides, time dilation has not been proven for particles that are nucleonic in size (which according to scholars is the mechanism that actually measures the timing in terms of the accuracy required), they only deal with particles at electron mass or smaller. In short, particles of nucleonic size are not affected by time dilation; therefore, that aspect of Einstein’s postulated is erroneous."
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! time dilation has been PROVEN in HUGE THINGS like mechanical clocks which put in fast orbiting sattelites in space after a year showed a time difference from normal clocks of 2 seconds atleast. its ALSO been shown in atomic clocks and the decay of cosmic muouns in the earth's atmosphere. and obviously u dont undrstand the concept of grand unification energuy very well, the phenomenon ur referring to only happens in heavy nuclie at 99.9999% the speed of light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats because the strong neuclear force weakens at such high energies, but u FAIL to understand a few things, first off, the twins paradox can happen EASILY and does happen at ALL speeds, its only observable at atleast 10% the spead of light, at even 99% the speed of light the necleus wudnt break away so my scenario is completely plausible since quarks dont break off until MUCH GREATER SPEEDS! also ur inability to understand reletivity REALLY SHOWES HERE, {please educate urself} energy is RELETIVE ot the observer, so assuming the people on earth see from their perspective that the twin in space has dispersed into subatomic particles{and thats not possible until much higher speeds than i mentioned in the first place} from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE TWIN FLYING THE SPACE SHIP, the WHOLE WORLD around him wud have dispersed in subneaucleonic particles and HE wud still exist, and since subneucleonic particles decays rapidly at a known rate, if both the observers on earth saw the particles of the aeronaut and the aeronaut wud observe the particles of the universe, THEY WUD BOTH SEE THE EFFECT OF TIME DILATION ON THE RATE OF DECAY AND ALSO MOVEMENT OF THE PARTICLES and forces etc. so there, ur whole argument is nulled.
"No physical thing is eternal because it is linked to time and time began with the creation of matter and space."
lol, i already gave the answer EXACTY to this! supersimension and self contained systems ARE eternal and they are NOT in any way shape or form linked to TIME. time might or might NOT have begun with the creation of the CURRENT{one among MANY} universe which constitutes matter and perceptual space.
"God is love as I have always stated.
I never said that God would laugh at yours or anyone’s misfortune—you said that. Besides, I was being facetious when I said that God would laugh at your theories (not your misfortunes). I meant that in jest not literally (lighten up and stop being so sensitive)."
god is not love, thats inconcistant with his actions and logic concerning him as seen in the bible. but thas ur own oppinion unless u dont force it into other coeherent arguments. u havent here so its fine. and i think YOU shud be very careful what u imply about god/holy spirit as u told me when i asked of the mechanism of the the holy spirit COMING ON TO MARY{which uve conveniently not replied to and stated that u dont know} using the holy spirit in jests to convey{as u say} a sadistic/mean side wont make jesus like u very much, U CUD END UP IN HELL MAN!!!!!!!!! lol, with me and shaky and all the other FOOLS whove said in their heart that there is no god!
"No, that is not the reason that I don’t accept the above argument. I don’t accept it because it is invalid.
Also, I am not here to win anything (I have stated this before)."
theres nuthing invalid about it, ive given plausible logic and scientific backing. while uve countered it with nuhting but a statement on ur unbased view on it. also what u say and do dont agree with each other, all ur efforts here are in direct opposition to a person who doesnt wat to WIN "ANYTHING" at the very least ur trying to win supporters who accept christianity and deny anything opposing it.
"However, I still maintain that time has a beginning because it is intrinsically linked to space and matter which have a beginning. Time began at the moment that space and matter began (their expansion that is)."
maintain whatever u wish, but dont state it as fact. there is as much evidence for time having a beginning as their is for it not having one. there is little evidence for it being PHYSICALLY linked to space and matter let alone intrinsically, its only a matter of subjective veiwing, its how u look at it, as far as cause effect relationships go, then no, it isnt linked to space and matter. and time beginning with s[pace and matter is just one theory with no special credit above the other theories which state otherwise.
"However, time in terms of its origin began as a line segment or spatial point, but in terms of its function is a ray because it has a beginning."
time is most definately NOT A "SPATIAL" line and it does not have "spatial" points, it only MIGHT have GEOMETRIC points, its also NOT a line SEGMENT, its a complete DIMENSION, its neither a RAY nor a LINE, its a DIMENSION which can SUPPORT an infinite number of rays and lines. domain/range is NOT the same as a line drawn in the domain/range. ALSO EVEN AS a DIMENSION, it is not linear and twists and turn and in context to even HIGHER dimension it is neither a line nor a ray. also dont state IT HAS A BEGINNING as fact. that hasnt been proven at all, also the very word BEGINNIG as u often use it implies the backing of time, which makes the statement illogical.{also its funny, that u who hasnt done any experiments let alone has the understanding ability of great philosophers/scientists/students of logic can presume to DEFINE the exact FUNCTION {mathematically} of the phenomenon called time when it has been beyond the grasps of all modern and historic physicists who work together to tackle or understand the exact same thins. oh no wait srry the BIBLE TOLD U RIGHT?} well congratulation u have been able to define time in all its completeness as a single TRUE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION, ur the single greatest thinker to have lived. whod have though that it was nuthing simpler than a RAY!
"My understanding of time may not be absolute but it is scientifically accurate."
no it isnt.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...and is versed in how to perform scientific research in accordance with the scientific method and other scientific process was necessary to orchestrate the formation of protobionts by guiding, overseeing, and orchestrating the process...
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I never said that any scientists were dabling with any stuff to create anything (I don't even talk like this), these are your words.What facts have I based on the internet?
I choose to ignore what evidence?
For starters, yes, you are implying that scientists are coaxing this random self-assembly, which they are not. I never stated that this is how you talk either. If this was so, I would've used quotations, but I'm not giving Comp I lessons here, so keep to your arguement please.
I did not state that you based facts from the internet. You recommended that I search the internet for answers about protobionts. This is why I recommended that you take a Cellular and Molecular Biology class like I have, and performed and observed said experiments.
Your last question is the most obtuse. I'm not even going to respond to it as I have spent plenty of posts already doing so.
My arguements still stands.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
"I have provided a number of examples for why I believe that time is linear. What is your definition of "one-dimensional?" You are not making any sense. Linear means "straight, involving a single dimension." "u havent provided any scientific examples, ur understanding of reletivity and quantum mechanics is worse than ur understanding of buddhism or syntax. linear means PERCIEVEABLY STRAIGHT TO AN OBSERVER GIVEN THAT HE IS IN THE SAME DIMENSION AS THE PHENOMENON IN QUESTION! straight DOES NOT MEAN a single dimension, it only vaguely implies it in EUCLEDIAN SPACE{just so that u UNDERSTAND this time, eucledian space is space where all dimenions at ALL points are at 90 degrees to each other} however real space-time as i said twists, turns, breaks off, reunites, changes shift, etc etc etc. also with physical dimensions{WHICH ARE NON EUCLEDIAN} u have to use geodiscs instead of LINES, as u see it simplistically{eg, the surface of the earth is TWO dimensional, i.e surface are, or the surface area of a sphere, in EUCLEDIAN SPACE ie, a page if u were to draw a triangle, the sum of the angles would ALWAYS be equal to 180 degress. however if u were to draw the SAME triangle on the same 2 dimensional plane called the surface of the sphere or earth, the internal angles of the triangle would always be GREATER than 180 degrees. its a simple experiment u can do urself to verify. PHYSICAL dimensions act like the surface of the sphere, as long as ur in the dimension, things wud seem liner, but from any other dimension, the original dimension in question is twisting and turning and is NON LINEAR, this is the basis for the explanation of the quantum effect and NONLINEAR propgation of light and particles which gave birth to the quantum theory!
"What do you mean by metapsychosis?
The theories about time travel support my belief that time is linear that is why I mention it."
metapsychosis= spirit transmigration, it was pun, intended to explain the phenomenon of quantum shifiting, to you who only understands things in terms of relegion. and no, the theories of time travel DONT support ur belief that time is linear.
"Question: Can an object of nucleonic particle size (or larger) be accelerated to near lightspeed? The answer is no. Nucleonic particles would become disrupted causing them to separate. The strong forces is not capable of holding those particles together at or near the speed of light. So, actually your Twins Hypothesis in relation to time dilation is invalid. There is no way for time dilation to occur at that speed. Besides, time dilation has not been proven for particles that are nucleonic in size (which according to scholars is the mechanism that actually measures the timing in terms of the accuracy required), they only deal with particles at electron mass or smaller. In short, particles of nucleonic size are not affected by time dilation; therefore, that aspect of Einstein’s postulated is erroneous."
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! time dilation has been PROVEN in HUGE THINGS like mechanical clocks which put in fast orbiting sattelites in space after a year showed a time difference from normal clocks of 2 seconds atleast. its ALSO been shown in atomic clocks and the decay of cosmic muouns in the earth's atmosphere. and obviously u dont undrstand the concept of grand unification energuy very well, the phenomenon ur referring to only happens in heavy nuclie at 99.9999% the speed of light!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats because the strong neuclear force weakens at such high energies, but u FAIL to understand a few things, first off, the twins paradox can happen EASILY and does happen at ALL speeds, its only observable at atleast 10% the spead of light, at even 99% the speed of light the necleus wudnt break away so my scenario is completely plausible since quarks dont break off until MUCH GREATER SPEEDS! also ur inability to understand reletivity REALLY SHOWES HERE, {please educate urself} energy is RELETIVE ot the observer, so assuming the people on earth see from their perspective that the twin in space has dispersed into subatomic particles{and thats not possible until much higher speeds than i mentioned in the first place} from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE TWIN FLYING THE SPACE SHIP, the WHOLE WORLD around him wud have dispersed in subneaucleonic particles and HE wud still exist, and since subneucleonic particles decays rapidly at a known rate, if both the observers on earth saw the particles of the aeronaut and the aeronaut wud observe the particles of the universe, THEY WUD BOTH SEE THE EFFECT OF TIME DILATION ON THE RATE OF DECAY AND ALSO MOVEMENT OF THE PARTICLES and forces etc. so there, ur whole argument is nulled.
"No physical thing is eternal because it is linked to time and time began with the creation of matter and space."
lol, i already gave the answer EXACTY to this! supersimension and self contained systems ARE eternal and they are NOT in any way shape or form linked to TIME. time might or might NOT have begun with the creation of the CURRENT{one among MANY} universe which constitutes matter and perceptual space.
"God is love as I have always stated.
I never said that God would laugh at yours or anyone’s misfortune—you said that. Besides, I was being facetious when I said that God would laugh at your theories (not your misfortunes). I meant that in jest not literally (lighten up and stop being so sensitive)."
god is not love, thats inconcistant with his actions and logic concerning him as seen in the bible. but thas ur own oppinion unless u dont force it into other coeherent arguments. u havent here so its fine. and i think YOU shud be very careful what u imply about god/holy spirit as u told me when i asked of the mechanism of the the holy spirit COMING ON TO MARY{which uve conveniently not replied to and stated that u dont know} using the holy spirit in jests to convey{as u say} a sadistic/mean side wont make jesus like u very much, U CUD END UP IN HELL MAN!!!!!!!!! lol, with me and shaky and all the other FOOLS whove said in their heart that there is no god!
"No, that is not the reason that I don’t accept the above argument. I don’t accept it because it is invalid.
Also, I am not here to win anything (I have stated this before)."
theres nuthing invalid about it, ive given plausible logic and scientific backing. while uve countered it with nuhting but a statement on ur unbased view on it. also what u say and do dont agree with each other, all ur efforts here are in direct opposition to a person who doesnt wat to WIN "ANYTHING" at the very least ur trying to win supporters who accept christianity and deny anything opposing it.
"However, I still maintain that time has a beginning because it is intrinsically linked to space and matter which have a beginning. Time began at the moment that space and matter began (their expansion that is)."
maintain whatever u wish, but dont state it as fact. there is as much evidence for time having a beginning as their is for it not having one. there is little evidence for it being PHYSICALLY linked to space and matter let alone intrinsically, its only a matter of subjective veiwing, its how u look at it, as far as cause effect relationships go, then no, it isnt linked to space and matter. and time beginning with s[pace and matter is just one theory with no special credit above the other theories which state otherwise.
"However, time in terms of its origin began as a line segment or spatial point, but in terms of its function is a ray because it has a beginning."
time is most definately NOT A "SPATIAL" line and it does not have "spatial" points, it only MIGHT have GEOMETRIC points, its also NOT a line SEGMENT, its a complete DIMENSION, its neither a RAY nor a LINE, its a DIMENSION which can SUPPORT an infinite number of rays and lines. domain/range is NOT the same as a line drawn in the domain/range. ALSO EVEN AS a DIMENSION, it is not linear and twists and turn and in context to even HIGHER dimension it is neither a line nor a ray. also dont state IT HAS A BEGINNING as fact. that hasnt been proven at all, also the very word BEGINNIG as u often use it implies the backing of time, which makes the statement illogical.{also its funny, that u who hasnt done any experiments let alone has the understanding ability of great philosophers/scientists/students of logic can presume to DEFINE the exact FUNCTION {mathematically} of the phenomenon called time when it has been beyond the grasps of all modern and historic physicists who work together to tackle or understand the exact same thins. oh no wait srry the BIBLE TOLD U RIGHT?} well congratulation u have been able to define time in all its completeness as a single TRUE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION, ur the single greatest thinker to have lived. whod have though that it was nuthing simpler than a RAY!
"My understanding of time may not be absolute but it is scientifically accurate."
no it isnt.
Thank you for your compliments (no matter how sarcastic they are).
😄
Originally posted by AngryManatee
For starters, yes, you are implying that scientists are coaxing this random self-assembly, which they are not. I never stated that this is how you talk either. If this was so, I would've used quotations, but I'm not giving Comp I lessons here, so keep to your arguement please.I did not state that you based facts from the internet. You recommended that I search the internet for answers about protobionts. This is why I recommended that you take a Cellular and Molecular Biology class like I have, and performed and observed said experiments.
Your last question is the most obtuse. I'm not even going to respond to it as I have spent plenty of posts already doing so.
My arguements still stands.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
As I stated before, you were never asking for a living organism. You were asking for something complex that came about by "chance," as you so stated.I would also like to remind you that it's not the scientists dabling with the stuff to create it. It is self-assembly, meaning that the scientists provide the proper environment for these inorganic substances (i.e. early earth environment), and they self-assemble. It has also been observed, as I stated before, that fragments of RNA have been observed to self-assemble in simulated early earth environments.
Instead of searching "teh internetz" for information, why not take a Cellular and Molecular biology class and do your own research. I find it rather inane that you would base all of your facts on the internet, especially when so much of it isn't verifiable.
Yes, my arguement still stands. You've only responded with how silly my observations are, which is rather childish. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence that pretty much all of the necessary biological molecules, and pretty much all the parts of a basic prokaryote, have been observed to self-assemble is merely stubborn on your part.
Still don't believe that you accused me of basing my facts on the internet?
😄
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Well then where do you get your info from? Do tell please, because my arguement still stands.
What argument still stands? Your argument that protobionts can self-assemble? They cannot do this without the aid of highly educated scientists overseeing the process. If they could do it independently then why don't they? They need a guided hand in the process.
Your argument fell a long time ago.
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What argument still stands? Your argument that protobionts can self-assemble? They cannot do this without the aid of highly educated scientists overseeing the process. If they could do it independently then why don't they? They need a guided hand in the process.Your argument fell along time ago.
😄
what is that? like, the retards guide to intelligent design?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What argument still stands? Your argument that protobionts can self-assemble? They cannot do this without the aid of highly educated scientists overseeing the process. If they could do it independently then why don't they? They need a guided hand in the process. Your argument fell along time ago.😄
They can self-assemble in an early earth environment due to the reducing/neutral (depending on the setup) atmosphere, as compared to our modern oxidizing atmosphere.
My argument still stands.
Edit: So where then do you get your info from?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
They can self-assemble in an early earth environment due to the reducing/neutral (depending on the setup) atmosphere, as compared to our modern oxidizing atmosphere.My argument still stands.
The answer to this question should end all debate. Question: have any of those protobionts ever self-assembled without the aid of an intellegent human?
I rest my case.
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The answer to this question should end all debate. Question: have any of those protobionts ever self-assembled without the aid of an intellegent human?I rest my case.
😄
You rest your case by ignoring billions of years of earth history, and also ignoring my statement about how early earth most likely had either a reducing or a neutral atmosphere. My argument still stands.
Edit: So where then do you get your info from?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
You rest your case by ignoring billions of years of earth history, and also ignoring my statement about how early earth most likely had either a reducing or a neutral atmosphere. My argument still stands.
Your argument stands on the pillars of denial. I asked you a direct question that stood to explode your argument and you dived out of its path, choosing to talk about earth history. I will ask you once more. Have those protobionts ever self-assembled without the aid of highly educated scientists?
Yes or no? (This is what your entire argument truly stands on, if the answer is no, which it should be then your argument is exploded.)
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your argument stands on the pillars of denial. I asked you a direct question that stood to explode your argument and you dived out of its path, choosing to talk about earth history. I will ask you once more. Have those protobionts ever self-assembled without the aid of highly educated scientists?Yes or no? (This is what your entire argument truly stands on, if the answer is no, which it should be then your argument is exploded.)
No my entire arguement does not stand on it. The environment is designed to represent an early earth environment which allows for the self-assembly of these complex molecules. Geological evidence shows that our atmosphere did not become predominantly oxidizing until about 2.3 billion years ago, which is coincidentally when the first photosynthetic prokaryotes came onto scene. So how else are you supposed to test this hypothesis? By creating your own early earth environment to as much accuracy as you can, of course. Your ignorance of how an oxidative atmosphere would limit any kind of initial assembly of biomolecules makes you unfit to even participate in this argument.
As for your inane question, yes and no. Protobionts, and particularly liposomes, can self-assemble on their own (liposomes especially since phospholipids naturally join together due to their hydrophobic nature). The only problem is that they are unable to progress further in complexity due to our oxidizing atmosphere, which has been shown to be detrimental to biological systems in terms of chemical evolution.
So yes, my argument still stands. Please stop basing your arguements on a current world model, as it shows your inexperience in the subject even further than already indicated.
Edit: So where then do you get your info from?